Home › Research › Treatments
Current and emerging drug treatment options for Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review
Herrmann N, Chau SA, Kircanski I, Lanctôt KL.. Drugs, 2011-10-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Plain-language summary
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive and ultimately fatal condition that causes debilitating memory loss and extensive deterioration of cognitive and functional abilities. Currently available treatments for AD (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine) are symptomatic and do not decelerate or prevent the progression of the disease. These therapies demonstrate modest, but particularly consistent, benefit for cognition, global status and functional ability. The search for disease-modifying interventions has focused largely on compounds targeting the amyloid-β pathway. To date, the treatments targeting this pathway, such as tramiprosate and semagacestat, have been unsuccessful in demonstrating efficacy in clinical stages of testing. At this point, it is likely that not only amyloid-β aggregation but other possible neuronal mechanisms - such as hyperphosphorylated tau, neuro-inflammation and other processes - play important roles in the pathophysiology of this multifactorial disorder. Development of better disease models and biomarkers is essential for the advancement of knowledge of the disease mechanisms. This systematic review critically examines the efficacy and safety data for currently approved drugs and emerging treatments in AD, as well as discussing the present and future directions of innovation in this field.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Herrmann, N., Chau, S. A., Kircanski, I., & Lanctôt, K. L. (2011). Current and emerging drug treatment options for Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review. Drugs. https://doi.org/10.2165/11595870-000000000-00000
Vancouver
Herrmann N, Chau SA, Kircanski I, Lanctôt KL. Current and emerging drug treatment options for Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review. Drugs. 2011. doi:10.2165/11595870-000000000-00000. PMID: 21985169.
BibTeX
@article{herrmann2011-21985169,
author = {Herrmann, N. and Chau, S. A. and Kircanski, I. and Lanctôt, K. L.},
title = {{Current and emerging drug treatment options for Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review}},
journal = {Drugs},
year = {2011},
doi = {10.2165/11595870-000000000-00000},
pmid = {21985169},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2165/11595870-000000000-00000}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- The search for disease-modifying interventions has focused largely on compounds targeting the amyloid-β pathway.
- To date, the treatments targeting this pathway, such as tramiprosate and semagacestat, have been unsuccessful in demonstrating efficacy in clinical stages of testing.
- At this point, it is likely that not only amyloid-β aggregation but other possible neuronal mechanisms - such as hyperphosphorylated tau, neuro-inflammation and other processes - play important roles in the pathophysiology of this multifactorial disorder.
- Development of better disease models and biomarkers is essential for the advancement of knowledge of the disease mechanisms.
- This systematic review critically examines the efficacy and safety data for currently approved drugs and emerging treatments in AD, as well as discussing the present and future directions of innovation in this field.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Study designsystematic review
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 64/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 64 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Drugs) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2011 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomization is not credited here |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 21985169) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 37 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 64 out of 100. |
| Total | 64 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Treatments from nearby years
Also tagged “emerging-drug”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “emerging-drug”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.